No, not even close. Today's poor ghettos are NOTHING like what life was like back then. The crime is still shit (although nowhere near as bad), but they actually have electricity, clean water, sanitation. Hell, we live in a country where the poor own Playstations and cell phones. It's practically impossible to starve to death. Our poor are like the middle class for most of the world. But keep on exaggerating reality to justify reaching for that liberal utopia you will never see.

He really isn't incorrect. Yes the poor in America have it better than the poor in almost every other country, but he was talking the income gap. Yes, the standard of living has improved for the poor, but at the same time the rich (who I have nothing against, believe me - hell I wish I was one of the "evil rich"! ) have seen their incomes and wealth skyrocket, meaning the gap remains equally as large.

If you are so upset about the "wealth disparity" maybe you should donate some of your vast wealth you claimed to have. What about those 14 combined poor guys you claim to make more than? Be charitable or shut up. Do you even know any poor people? Have you ever spent 1 hour of your life in a soup kitchen? Have you ever donated to a food bank? Do you do anything unlike the typical liberal talking about the poor without acting?

I'm confused as to why empathizing with the poor who need help (not talking about the ones who do nothing to help themselves here) and looking for societal solutions to do so somehow means one should feel obligated to give up his own wealth to do so. Especially when the scale of the problem is such that one person donating everything he or she has but the shirt on their back won't make a dent in the problem. Donating your time at a shelter or soup kitchen is indeed a worthy and noble effort, but by itself will not fix the root causes for the widespread poverty in some places. Not everyone who lives under the poverty line is a deadbeat loser who wants to leech off of society while getting fat on twinkies and ribeyes paid for with welfare money.

Personally I think the answer lies more in education and cultural change rather than "robbing the rich to give to the poor" but even so things like that will take time and money. I don't think it's okay to just say that they should either suck it up and except their lot in life or figure it all out on their own, because chances are they won't. Believe me, I'm with you - for the healthy ones with stong backs or sound minds, most of the heavy lifting in the pursuit of their better life has to come from themselves. But helping them along the way to make sure they have the opportunities should not be considered a waste of money or turning the country into a nanny state - it ought to be considered how a decent civilized community operates.

This comment was edited on Nov 1, 2013, 10:50.

“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.” - Mahatma Gandhi